From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pf1-f175.google.com (mail-pf1-f175.google.com [209.85.210.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 670D2186E58; Sun, 20 Oct 2024 11:40:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.175 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729424443; cv=none; b=BduuEr8QK+dq1Reds7tkFEun8NcDj7fBB+FJ//8ETIcOrJuVJFec0UrYq3PvDXgQXA8PpWVa/6Ls2fVB0gZ9h14i6gt/VhBQ+cjDoMbVGuTBr4qCSxKUA1eogt6PN718p5Pj+7pR4idxR97LWLVN1LK+fKpDJtPyS7PLAFbNEHY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729424443; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LZSclOn3sg2DTi+j7QmICefur9TypI9bFU0OWBdbLZ4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-ID:References; b=C2WslwIHgB56HJxnK2hviI/QhonWOsNbTAH8rdQJvTEb6HuYCM2n0wAemr+jedGyrti4//i+KDPkeakGl0sHtbjsLiTyl+pEJl6RbUgGhdel+92oCoVFxsGGQXXJrlQWihJ0rZTAi+MBsyIYvmeCgaWjvRqQGmFtBIgp4UnssUo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=cAJ0IFZL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.175 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="cAJ0IFZL" Received: by mail-pf1-f175.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-71e5130832aso2481411b3a.0; Sun, 20 Oct 2024 04:40:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1729424440; x=1730029240; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=references:message-id:date:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=vUbICe/4LF2trKdQd96Gc7YLcrYUreXzljzyoUzCuwE=; b=cAJ0IFZL9+7WRHuz+rx0/hMlh2bAQWbZwNWgNyIrbipm2RPtKKVXRJcPj6h7xCmfSb ZwLnkk6/ifl+KvIsucOfhFe4wemrOmkhsR8WDftd/gQunq+bHnMYmVJbBzO8mBEoKKBU EmoiZdkYdVqQgnONBJvJ+RPS0IQNvmgJn+ellmcXDQ8bHAIdRN+kwo6pog5/xi4FCuJH 8QOlyDiv6I208MAcCDGtdUCOqy9DHSWx9LmWS6j83d20L7X0ms3DcF2/nthH1srv7IBW xvfO0OdwDgD9vqLK9yGFhZlAsjQFjxiCFdUOGDYGjv4B9+BHdk9/xZJ+rZYisL57EowJ eTbg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1729424440; x=1730029240; h=references:message-id:date:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=vUbICe/4LF2trKdQd96Gc7YLcrYUreXzljzyoUzCuwE=; b=s6tuaG2ZljPtVrDKDnSUfHXCZRbT3Ai1SS5XW6mKEkdEvOl/OMV7piCzu0Sz6CQHoV QiIKLCOQRBycdpn2n+eKLdOuoyiiXXPEbVKGb9Lk94bOO81+aMXAm6didXsDNu5gWxl+ Lz4Wr/bOa+oP1YAh4+7V9R/ZTajXhPqPqYvVWg6TYI76rm/ISPirA+VSyFTReRKCTcgc OgS5OmW4Wb0BE6oL+/qmjNFyuPxCWuCnYwfyJPwn9PsH6tZt0rpK8oFoT9Pt2fPZ9PUl qy1cch0pI3cd0Af8AflqPJ6Gs22gS05kGu4oSOdX2hzJ/IO5cDheGnvfTwl3xrhFeg1X Jbwg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUFsVQjEPJmjaYd0CnkmnPhfaQKjowOzrQqDQu7F5P3KMva0mUOrIycgiZfJss5FgY6O6MoQh+7qQz8@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCUXyvNWuGqiid3XORNUJX+4WJKFL6/Tb853RJ8jwsCNchdOvb1gh4v8EGV0XNC4rL3vVG0bK1Nmvw9dfFF4@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCVc9U/Wk9Z5m/GBCAOFjHx3Ep6S+uMRiHt/hqtyOJjx0qvMs9MuUMlanhwxgfYWdZShAcdknFlj8E4OqACE@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxnmSlFIYlSaBIovAdYjBo+HdsbWhvPbAh+BGVwxrHgiEh2kmQB Q9JckO87tCGxO5ZJZZkylZl3bbKMp6sDe6mE2rb7z3qR+fLNzfwA X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF8ArixtltKuMOBS4gFAzUTxigNcFYIrJKlSo95ockDQwjrWKKyBPcdau9vkhpcJsnR/vgd3g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:2d96:b0:71e:4a51:2007 with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-71ea3129934mr11867922b3a.4.1729424440437; Sun, 20 Oct 2024 04:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dw-tp ([171.76.81.191]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-71ec1415066sm1030291b3a.198.2024.10.20.04.40.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 20 Oct 2024 04:40:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) To: John Garry , axboe@kernel.dk, brauner@kernel.org, djwong@kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.cz, dchinner@redhat.com, hch@lst.de, cem@kernel.org Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hare@suse.de, martin.petersen@oracle.com, catherine.hoang@oracle.com, mcgrof@kernel.org, ojaswin@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 5/8] fs: iomap: Atomic write support In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 17:07:41 +0530 Message-ID: <87o73fgg3e.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20241019125113.369994-1-john.g.garry@oracle.com> <20241019125113.369994-6-john.g.garry@oracle.com> <87sesrgp5v.fsf@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: John Garry writes: > On 20/10/2024 09:21, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote: >>> -293,7 +295,8 @@ static loff_t iomap_dio_bio_iter(const struct iomap_iter *iter, >>> const struct iomap *iomap = &iter->iomap; >>> struct inode *inode = iter->inode; >>> unsigned int fs_block_size = i_blocksize(inode), pad; >>> - loff_t length = iomap_length(iter); >>> + const loff_t length = iomap_length(iter); >>> + bool atomic = iter->flags & IOMAP_ATOMIC; >>> loff_t pos = iter->pos; >>> blk_opf_t bio_opf; >>> struct bio *bio; >>> @@ -303,6 +306,9 @@ static loff_t iomap_dio_bio_iter(const struct iomap_iter *iter, >>> size_t copied = 0; >>> size_t orig_count; >>> >>> + if (atomic && length != fs_block_size) >>> + return -EINVAL; >> We anyway mandate iov_iter_count() write should be same as sb_blocksize >> in xfs_file_write_iter() for atomic writes. >> This comparison here is not required. I believe we do plan to lift this >> restriction maybe when we are going to add forcealign support right? > > Yes, we would lift this restriction if and when forcealign is added. Or > when bigalloc is leveraged for ext4 atomic writes. > > But I think that today it is proper to add this check, as we are saying > that iomap DIO path does not support anything else than fs_block_size. > > For forcealign, we were introducing support for atomic writes spanning > mixed unwritten and written extents in [0]. We don't have that support > here, so it is prudent to say that we just support fs_block_size. > > [0] > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20240607143919.2622319-4-john.g.garry@oracle.com/ > Sure. >> >> And similarly this needs to be lifted when ext4 adds support for atomic >> write even with bigalloc. I hope we can do so when we add such support, right? > > Right > Thanks for confirming that. The patch looks good to me. Please feel free to add - Reviewed-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM)